Researching a debate means looking at both sides right? Not just stocking up on the best arguments for your side of it?What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"AstusAleator King Cobra King Cobra

Sometimes theres no quote function on my screen so I copied you king cobra. Yes I will look at that, thank you. Sincerely and respectfully, not to be sarcastic, but I like to study science and reach my own conclusions about the origin. I have been inundated all my life with evolution. The debate in the education system and media is one sided.

For instance we are told that chloroplasts (Berkley website--geologic timescale) are actually cyanobacteria which somehow incorporated themselves into green plants without being digested and evolved with the plants. I have seen the same thing in biology textbooks regarding mitochondria.

No one saw that happen nor is there any proof of such, but it is repeated dogmatically as fact. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are facts, but to speak of their origin takes speculation or faith.

And speaking of mitochondria, when I see the the electron transport chain I don't believe it is "close minded" to be rather amazed at the equivalent of pico-technology. This is a nothing less than a microscopic machine! I can not look at the perfect balance of this electron gradient pump which produces our ATP without seeing the mark of a all wise creator! Sorry if you don't agree. GREAT VIDEO http://vcell.ndsu.edu/animations/etc/index.htm

In all fairness, that's because there really isn't that much to debate.

AFJ wrote:No one saw that happen nor is there any proof of such, but it is repeated dogmatically as fact. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are facts, but to speak of their origin takes speculation or faith.

If this is true, I suppose you'd better get ready to tell all the police detectives in the world that they're out of work. If no witness saw the crime happen, there'll be no way to prove who did it, will there?

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

My understanding of the chloroplast/mitochondria hypothesis is that it is supported by genetics. Mitochondria have their own sets of DNA (mitochondrial DNA) which replicate independently of the parent cell and retain to a large degree their ancestral configurations.Furthermore the multiple membrane configuration of the mito or chloroplast is an indicator that these organelles might not have originated as part of the cell.

It's a pretty interesting topic. It would be nice if we knew more, but as it's been pointed out, we didn't see it happen so we can only speculate on what we've observed. Maybe someday we'll find a good example of early-stage endosymbiosis.

This article addresses endysymbionts, which live inside the cells of other organisms. This is actually very common and important in understanding how an ancestral mitochondria can be engulfed and not digested by the host cell.

What it all comes down to, in my opinion, is if it looks like a bacteria, and it smells like a bacteria, and it has the same genome as a bacteria . . .

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

AstusAleator wrote:My understanding of the chloroplast/mitochondria hypothesis is that it is supported by genetics. Mitochondria have their own sets of DNA (mitochondrial DNA) which replicate independently of the parent cell and retain to a large degree their ancestral configurations.Furthermore the multiple membrane configuration of the mito or chloroplast is an indicator that these organelles might not have originated as part of the cell.

It's a pretty interesting topic. It would be nice if we knew more, but as it's been pointed out, we didn't see it happen so we can only speculate on what we've observed. Maybe someday we'll find a good example of early-stage endosymbiosis.

Thank you Mr. Astus. Just a did a read on the mtDNA on wikipedia. Couple of comments.

In the cells of extant organisms, the vast majority of the proteins present in the mitochondria (numbering approximately 1500 different types in mammals) are coded for by nuclear DNA,

Speaking of genetics, Mr. Astus, the nucleus of the cell is in control of the information for the mitochondria, not the mitochodria. As well, in cytokenesis the mitochondria divides in sync with the entire cell. One would be hard pressed to come up with a logistical explanation in this hypothesis. However from my standpoint, I see cell division as the glory of God!

but the genes for some of them, if not most, are thought to have originally been of bacterial origin, having since been transferred to the eukaryotic nucleus during evolution.

"...are thought..." is the only evidence we have for this hypothesis, which amounts to opinion. Yet we are being told that these things are fact by people like Richard Dawkins. How do we arrive at a fact when this "fact" is built on hypotheses. This is a great wrong.

AFJ wrote:Speaking of genetics, Mr. Astus, the nucleus of the cell is in control of the information for the mitochondria, not the mitochodria. As well, in cytokenesis the mitochondria divides in sync with the entire cell. One would be hard pressed to come up with a logistical explanation in this hypothesis. However from my standpoint, I see cell division as the glory of God!

I am pretty sure the mitochondria are in charge of themselves, as far as DNA goes.

I have not read much detail about how this works in cell division, but just throwing some thoughts out there, it probably involves a chemical pathway between the nucleus and the mitochondria, telling the mitochondria when it is time to start dividing. This may even have been present in the ancestral inter-cellular endosymbiont; after all, there are obvious advantages to reproducing every time your host cell divides!

AFJ wrote:"...are thought..." is the only evidence we have for this hypothesis, which amounts to opinion. Yet we are being told that these things are fact by people like Richard Dawkins. How do we arrive at a fact when this "fact" is built on hypotheses. This is a great wrong.

The word "fact" is not used very often by scientists because it is almost impossible for anything to ever be established as hard fact. The reason such theories are so widely presented are because they are the best we have yet been able to come up with. If you have a better theory, you are more than welcome to publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal and share your discovery with the rest of us.

As for Richard Dawkins, I think the man has a very exaggerated opinion of himself.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

I'm not offering this as "Proof" of current theory, just an example of the research that has gone into it and is going into it.

It could very well be that mitochondria and chloroplasts have a completely different evolutionary origin than we think - and that at some point research will show this. Currently this is the best scientific explanation we have.

While I agree that scientific theory shouldn't be accepted on blind faith; scientifically valid theories are backed up by a host of research and literature. These aren't just made-up things a bunch of conspirators have agreed to brainwash our children with.

It doesn't help that there are people out there (like Dawkins) who are blatantly trying to get rid of religion - and using evolution as a weapon in their war. Please recognize that the scientific study of evolution is not an attack on your religious beliefs.

The ETC is amazing, and if it speaks to your soul so be it. A quiet moment on a mountaintop does it for me. If someday scientists are able to definitively detail the exact process by which every microscopic function of our existence came to be - would that shatter your belief in a god, your sense of wonder and awe?

If you're a Christian, you believe in a personal relationship with God. My advice is - keep it personal. Why should you have to prove to yourself or anyone else that He exists? God speaks to the heart of man, right? So why appeal to logic?

Anyway, enough religious talk. like I said before, I think endosymbiotic theory is fascinating - though we obviously don't know a ton about it. We do know enough that the current theories seem to fit better than any other scientific alternative.

What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"